Senate Executive Committee - today's joke

What an absolute joke the Executive Committee of the Illinois Senate is!

I watched (wasted) three hours today watching the Live-stream (the dribble) from the Senate, only to see them shoot down SB2193, which I didn't like, for an even worse bill, HB1083, sponsored in the Senate by Kwame Raoul.

The man doesn't even understand his own bill. But maybe that's no surprise, since Amendment 4 is 164 pages long. I watched and listened to him stammer and stutter when asked questions by members of the Senate Executive Committee. It was embarrassing!

Before the Senate Executive Committee took up HB0183, they heard from Sen. Gary Forby and Rep. Brandon Phelps about SB2193. The Committee voted 6-8, thereby defeating that bill.

Then Raoul stepped up to the plate with HB1083. The Chairman of the Committee, Sen. Don Harmon (D-39 (Oak Park)) stated that a record 1,171 digital witness slips opposing HB0183 had been received. Did the Committee care? Ha!

Todd Vandermyde, the NRA's lobbyist, gave his reasons that the NRA is against the bill.Among the reasons he gave for opposing HB1083 were:

- It adds another $50 or so to the cost of applying, for the expense of digital fingerprints;
- Issues with magazine capacity (he carries 18 rounds of 9mm), other ammo. (such as hollow points) and transportation;
- Chicago $500 impound fee, if you are arrested for a weapons violation;
- some municipalities prohibit lasers;
- ISP has 90 days to create a training curriculum;
- ISP has 180 days to create a system to process concealed-carry applications;
- Gun-free zones - no pass-through of large gatherings

The Committee then adopted Raoul's bill by a vote of 10-4-1.

What will happen now? HB0183 will go to the full Senate for a vote. You can bet it will pass. Then it will go to the House this week, where either Sen. Forby or Rep. Phelps HB0183 said it is not likely to pass.

Or is it just the back door that Speaker Madigan was counting on?

The clowns in the General Assembly keep making a big deal about guns in liquor-serving establishments. What's the big deal, if the armed person isn't drinking? Why shouldn't he be able to dine in Olive Garden or Outback Steakhouse or some of the upscale restaurants where the pols probably spend their per-diems?

The purpose of concealed carry is to give the law-abiding citizen an opportunity to defend himself! If some drunk in a bar or restaurant starts shooting up the place, why shouldn't a sober, armed citizen have the right to defend himself?